Message from @Aero
Discord ID: 545665156575657985
lol
Going back the the social contract and lack of consent video "Taxation Isn't Theft, Because of the Social Contract", do we ask murderers for consent to jail them? Call it a strawman or whatever, but in this frame of mind, let's make a hypothetical situation with some assumptions:
Assumptions:
A government's bare minimum objective is to govern over the people who consented to be governed and defend those people. This requires a police force and a military. Secondary objective in this day in age would probably be to deal with foreign governments as representatives of those people it governs.
Because of this assumption, the government in effect lays claim to the land which it presides over - not in terms of ownership, but in terms of protection from both internal (via Police) and external (via Army) forces. The details of this sort of non-ownership claim would have to be ironed out a bit more, sure, but in effect it means eminent domain can't really be applied.
The Hypothetical:
Let's say there was a society in which we have the above mentioned government policy. Babies are born and therefor cannot give consent to be governed (shoutout to the anti-natalists out there i guess...). Let's add another assumption stating that children under the age of 18 fall under the rule of their parents for the sheer fact that children cannot give informed consent. Due to this, the parents of the child would get in trouble if the child did anything that is worthy of calling the police over.
Once the child turns 18, he or she can either give consent to be governed, or not. If they give consent, then great, things are easy from there. If they do not give consent, if this individual does not own property, they do not have to pay taxes (a 'membership fee' in this hypothetical). If this individual is attacked on the streets by another person who did not consent, police are encouraged to ignore the occurrence and not investigate if it resulted in murder. This person can leave the country with no issue, but as this person wouldn't have any government-approved records, another government would most likely be unwilling to accept them (as they don't know if this individual is a criminal).
Congratulations, you essentially made me create a mafia. How would governments work otherwise in a completely libertarian society?
They wouldn't exist
If you think about the government as an insurance agency that protects your rights, then the difference between a libertarian society and a state would be that the libertarian society would not have a compulsory monopoly provider that uses violence to prevent competition.
But the nap agreement tho
I was gonna say that, @halfthink , that a government, if any, were to exist, it wouldn't be compulsory but rather voluntary
the nap is not an agreement, thougjh
NAP is a legal theory.
Yeah, ethics and so forth
So, would a libertarian society have any way of defending against foreign nations?
And even as a legal framework, in a lot of adjudication processes, jurisprudence would be conditioned by culture and local customs
Unironically recreational nukes
Libertarianism is a ridiculous fantasy. The stupidity of ancapistan violates my nap.
Even Hoppeans are just proxy monarchists who are scared of being called nazis.
Now that's a strawman if I've ever seen one
to be clear, i'm not advocating for anything. i'm just wondering how it would work in the real world
Of course
Well I can show you using modern economic theory why capitalism always results in plutocracy
regardless whether you start with no state or with
What "modern economic theory" are you referring to?
please no MMT
i cringe
pareto principle applies to all systems of trade without necessary constraints, so basically within any system of trade within a pareto optimization game there will be consistent winners who hoard capital, and through this capital can actually determine supply and demand in an oligopolistic or monopolistic sense
in so doing, the "freedom" of the market is ultimately undermined by its lack of constraints within the get go
pareto principle = 80/20 distribution of any thing trade in "free" system of competition
the idea behind it though, is that those with money are the ones that would have the most to lose if anything went wrong, no?
(thinking from the human wealth angle)
convergence to this proportion ensures plutocracy in long run, as winners bribe or create govts to then enforce their oligopolistic (close to monopoly) control
no, because risk diminishes with higher capital
whereas risk is highest with startups, who then just get bought out by consistent winners
risk never fully goes away even if you diversify properly, but just because you have a lot, doesn't mean you're safe (look at venezuela, lol)
The solution to the pareto principle destroying social cohesion via plutocracy is creating strict constraints and limits on wealth and trade initially, regulated by a powerful authoritarian state with a volkish principle at its leading goal.
venezuela is literally in shambles due to plutocrats using the cia like a mercenary group by couping them from within and causing chaos
It wasn't a random market thing
alright, so cia conspiracy theory is where you fall... sorry, agree to disagree with that one.
>conspiracy theories